Baptism of babies & infants

[EdOsiecki]

Cardinal Newman and Wiseman from England had been opposed to the Definition, not as some Protestants assert by only stating they opposed it, and leading people to think that they did not believe it, (They both came from a Protestant backround and prior to their study of history, the Fathers, and the Bible, to support their conversion to the Catholic Faith, they had been Anti-Catholics, who would make even Ed blush, and in their attempt to honestly disprove the Catholic Faith, became convinced that they must become Catholics.) They argued against the definition of Papal Infallibility, as did many who returned home without voting because of the Anti-Catholics in their homelands. Wiseman and Newman both warned that Protestants would not take time to see both how reasonable and Scriptural the dogma was, and would continue to spread the false ideas that they had already been spreading that Catholics believed the Pope could not error about anything, and that Catholics had to close there minds to learining. That if the Pope said water was dry and air was wet, Catholics would have to believe it. So many who came from places where they feared the Protestant populus, in order to keep attacks (Physical and Polemic) against the Church did not vote so they could say that they did not vote for the dogma to the Protestants in the area. There were a few like Dollenger, who went on to found the Old Catholic Sect who really did not assent to the dogma, but they were very few. I know it is not the spin the Protestants want to put on it, but it is what contemporary writers inform us.

BTW after the definition, Newman and Wiseman, who never thought the dogma to be untrue, just unwise to promulgate and upset the Catholics in England who had only recently been allowed a legal status, and they feared would be driven back into hiding, and suffer the persecutions they had lived under during the Penal times, when priests were tried in a secret court, and tortured and killed, and Catholics were deprived of their lands and taxed at excessive rates, would have to face the old ways again, became the greatest defenders of the dogma.

Hi Filioque, Thanks for your lengthy reply. What you say may some merit but in making a dogma there HAS to be a Scriptural basis for it, otherwise how would anyone know if it’s true? In Mat 24:4, when the disciples asked Jesus what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age? The very first thing Jesus said, “Watch out that no one DECEIVES you.” Paul in Gal1:8 also warns about not being DECEIVED. The only way one can be sure of that, is by checking the Scriptures exactly like the Bereans did in Acts 17:11. Let Cardinal Newman and Wiseman believe what they want to believe. My faith should not be based on what they believe. During the Great Tribulation the anti-christ will proclaim to be God. Now look what God say in 2Thes 2:9, “The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, v 10 and in every sort of evil that DECEIVES those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. v11 For this reason God SENDS them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the LIE.” The only way we can know the truth is what the Bible teaches. ED O.

 

[placido]

Hi placido, thanks for your reply. I’m back. For 34 years, I never found any Scripture that supports the infallibility doctrine of the Catholic church.

So, since in 34 years you failed to find something, your conclusion is it doesn’t exist, right? Why not try relying on the 2 000 years wisdom of the Church?

and I’m sure Jesus’ church of the Bible is complete as it is written just as it was in the O.T.
The Pharisees and Sadducees’ man-made rules is what Jesus condemned. I now see a parallel. The Bible states only two Sacraments, from where did the other five come from?

That is very easy to tell, I mean, the other five sacraments came from where you got the word “sacrament” from. The alternative it o show me the word “sacrament” in your Bible.

Since I could not find anything about the popes being infallible in the Scriptures, I found references to it in other sources. For exp. At the first Vatican Council 1870, of the 1,000 members that were present, 535 voted for and 2 against the infallibility, the others left without voting. Why on such an important doctrine? ED O.

Are you American citizen? Do you believe the USA had a president before Barak Obama? Do you know how many people voted for and against George W. Bush and how many abstained from voting? Using the same logic you use against infallibility, you will have to believe that the USA did not have a president for the past four years. But do you believe that?

placido

 

[placido]

Hi Filioque, thanks for your reply. Hey there! If you are watching TBN, you are getting closer to the truth.

I am also watching TBN and the more I watch the false miracles and the more I listen to the prosperity gospel and the false prophets come on board with weird end time predictions, the more I am convinced Catholicism is true.

There’s a Catholic priest on one of their programs. Keep it up. ED O.

Do you know that if the TV existed during Jesus’ ministry on earth, even Judas Iscariot would have become a celebrity?

placido

 

[placido]

Hi placido, thanks for your reply. My question wasn’t about the Ethiopian ( mabe he was dumb)

Now that is your desperate speculation and I know why you need to resort to speculation.

I’m asking you why do you read the Bible if you can’t interpret what you are reading? ED O.

I can interpret but my interpretation is subordinate to the teaching of the Church. As an analogy one can say, soccer players are free to kick the ball as long as they keep it within the touchline.

placido

 

[EdOsiecki]

So, since in 34 years you failed to find something, your conclusion is it doesn’t exist, right? Why not try relying on the 2 000 years wisdom of the Church?

That is very easy to tell, I mean, the other five sacraments came from where you got the word “sacrament” from. The alternative it o show me the word “sacrament” in your Bible.

Are you American citizen? Do you believe the USA had a president before Barak Obama? Do you know how many people voted for and against George W. Bush and how many abstained from voting? Using the same logic you use against infallibility, you will have to believe that the USA did not have a president for the past four years. But do you believe that?

placido

.Hi placido, thanks for your reply. Since you can’t supply me with any Scripture to support the infallibility to show me that you are right. Why should I believe what you call 2000 years of wisdom. That’s like telling me to believe what you want me to believe but I should leaves my brains at the door. Right? The word sacrament is not in the Bible. Either is the word Trinity but you believe it don’t you? Your argument about Obama is nonsense. But tell me this, if the popes are infallible why did it take so long until 1870 to decide that doctrine? How then can you claim 2000 years of wisdom. At best then it’s only 130 years. Right? ED O

 

[EdOsiecki]

Now that is your desperate speculation and I know why you need to resort to speculation.

I can interpret but my interpretation is subordinate to the teaching of the Church. As an analogy one can say, soccer players are free to kick the ball as long as they keep it within the touchline.

placido

Hi placido, thanks for your reply. You will have to use some other analogy because I don’t know anything about soccer. Thanks for your replies. I’m tired it’s 3:22 A.M. I’m going to bed . Have a good night! ED O.

 

[placido]

Hi placido, thanks for your reply. Many years ago, I was told that on the Rock of Peter the Catholic church was built. But do you know what? They since changed their mind per Catholic Catechism #424, “On the rock of THIS faith confessed by St.Peter, Christ built His church.” THIS faith was in Jesus the Rock.

To my suprise you are not aware that there are polyvalent texts in the Bible. Secondly you failed to do your homework, that is why you failed to see # 881 in the Catholic Cathecism: " The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock."

Yes you are right this thread is about infant baptism. So I’m asking you personaly for what reason is it necessary to baptized infants? Please give me a simple answer other than because the church tells you to do so. ED O.

Her is the simple answer you requested: a) Christ Has Commanded Us to do so, b) Babies Need Forgiveness, c) Baptism Replaces Circumcision, d) Infants Can Believe, e) The Practice of the Early Church.

placido

 

[placido]

.Hi placido, thanks for your reply. Since you can’t supply me with any Scripture to support the infallibility to show me that you are right. Why should I believe what you call 2000 years of wisdom. That’s like telling me to believe what you want me to believe but I should leaves my brains at the door. Right? The word sacrament is not in the Bible. Either is the word Trinity but you believe it don’t you?

Apparently you do not even see you are contradicting yourself.

1. You believe in two sacraments,
2. You admit the word sacrament is not in the Bible (meaning you believe in something that is not in the Bible), yet you dare ask us where the other five sacraments come from since you don’t see them in the Bible.

Your argument about Obama is nonsense.

Oh, in what sense is that nonsense? Simply because you say so? Is comparing voting with the voting nonsense?

But tell me this, if the popes are infallible why did it take so long until 1870 to decide that doctrine? How then can you claim 2000 years of wisdom. At best then it’s only 130 years. Right? ED O

That is a good question, but then, why do you keep the secret information regarding the deadline for the formulation of new doctrine for yourself? Why not share with us the day the Holy Spirit was supposed to stop guiding the Church into the whole truth?
BTW, the decision took that long because it took that long before someone opposed the doctrine (I hope you know the history of the Holy Bible … the canon was only decided after someone came up with a novel idea of what constituted of scriptures).
Go through church history and you will find that doctrines like the trinity are only declared after someone oposed them.

placido

 

[placido]

Hi placido, thanks for your reply. You will have to use some other analogy because I don’t know anything about soccer. Thanks for your replies.

What about American football … are players not allowed freedom as long as they keep the ball within the defined parameters? Same with reading the Bible. You are allowed to interpret it, keeping in mind you are not the final authority; Jesus established the Church as the pillar and ground of thuth.

I’m tired it’s 3:22 A.M. I’m going to bed . Have a good night! ED O.

Wow, that is the big deal with interacting with people living in a different time zone. It is now 11:00 AM where I am.

placido

 

[Texan77]

What are the most common non-Catholic objections to the baptism of infants?

As a former baptist we believed in a believers baptism

As a convert to the Catholic Christian faith I now understand that some non catholics have placed confirmation of ones faith in with the vows of baptism and likewise neither are considered sacraments…

 

[onenow1]

Originally Posted by EdOsiecki
Yes you are right this thread is about infant baptism. So I’m asking you personaly for what reason is it necessary to baptized infants? Please give me a simple answer other than because the church tells you to do so. ED O.

Quote=onenow1. WOW !!! ACTS 2:3-4 “And there appeared to them parted tongues as of fire, which settled upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in foreign tongues, even as the Holy Spirit prompted them to speak.” Acts 2:3-4.

Soon after the descent of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles began Baptizing the people…

“But Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’.” Acts 2:38

Notice Acts 2:" 39 For the promise is made to you and your children."

Quote= onenow1. Looks pretty inclusive to me ! :yup:

Peace and God Bless
onenow1

 

[AdrianP]

Just adding one more thing. For 1500 years all Christians baptized their children. As jews did circumcision after birth without asking their children, Christians do baptism without asking their children, All historical documents up to 1500, valid historical documents that protestants name them tradition and discard them, all these documents speak about baptizing children.
How the debate started?
In 1700 some people willing not to pay taxes, that were paid by baptized people found a loophole and started getting baptized as adults and after that they had a wrong Bible interpretation and from here so called debate.

All important moments in Bible for almost 2000 years are pointed by miracles that today happen in Orthodox Christianity.
1.The most important moment in Bible is Jesus resurrection proving him to be God and having power over death. The history say that Apostle Peter coming to the Holy Sepulcher and that he found a Light there. Over the Holy Sepulcher, the cave where Jesus body lied for some days a Church was built and in this Church , Holy Sepulcher Church in Jerusalem, in the celebration of Jesus resurrection on Orthodox Easter sometime different of Protestant Easter date the, a miracle happens year by year, Holy Light is coming from the sky on the ceremony done by Patriarch of Jerusalem, Leader of First Church in the World. On one year Armenians asked the political leader to move orthodox people outside the Church, at that time Protestantism and the debates of today didn’t exists, and the political leader agreed but said if the Holy Light will not come to you you need to eat some smelly things. So the Holy Light come to Orthodox Christians .This is history of Holy Light:
holyfire.org/eng/velich.htm
This is a movie about Holy Light in around 2000 and the priest on my Church saw it in reality and you can see it too.In the movie you can see Holy Light under middle gate in this:
youtube.com/watch?v=6EI71Uk28rI
2.When Jesus was baptised Jordan river moved backward to show that nature listens to God. Every year on Orthodox date of Jesus baptism when the Patriarch of First Church in the World does a ceremony, Jordan river moves backward from the time the Patriarch throws the cross in the water to the time cross is taken outside the water. Here is the movie and you can see water moving one direction and then cross moving the other way:
youtube.com/watch?v=CfmrqZwUjCQ&feature=channel_page
3.On Orthodox Date of Transfiguration a cloud comes to Mount Tabor.
4.Angels are present when priests give Food for Etrenal life to people in Orthodox Church, look in following movie at 2:38 and 2:40:
youtube.com/watch?v=RFA79d8859o&feature=channel_page
5.Orthodox Priests with Holy Spirit received at ordination, through prayer transform normal water in Holy Water changing molecular movement of molecules from Brownian to other movement and Water resists for years. Actually God is doing all these miracles.
6.Saint bodies stream myrrh
7.Prophets, miracle workers, people walking on water, levitation, seeing anywhere in Earth, apparitions after death and much much
more
8. At my grandpas death ceremony food started to grow by itself.
9. Holy Trinity , Jesus, Holy Mother of God is speaking today with many people in Orthodox World

Other miracles:
youtube.com/user/IoanRomania09

 

[Filioque]

Hi Filioque, Thanks for your lengthy reply. What you say may some merit but in making a dogma there HAS to be a Scriptural basis for it, otherwise how would anyone know if it’s true? In Mat 24:4, when the disciples asked Jesus what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age? The very first thing Jesus said, “Watch out that no one DECEIVES you.” Paul in Gal1:8 also warns about not being DECEIVED. The only way one can be sure of that, is by checking the Scriptures exactly like the Bereans did in Acts 17:11. Let Cardinal Newman and Wiseman believe what they want to believe. My faith should not be based on what they believe. During the Great Tribulation the anti-christ will proclaim to be God. Now look what God say in 2Thes 2:9, “The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, v 10 and in every sort of evil that DECEIVES those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. v11 For this reason God SENDS them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the LIE.” The only way we can know the truth is what the Bible teaches. ED O.

Ed:

You asked if the dogma was so important, why so many who did not vote. I replied, fear of the misinterpretaion by Protestants who had already distorted the Catholic view of Infallibilty. But thank you for reminding me. If the proper definition of infallibilty had been unknown to the Church prior to the pronouncement of the dogma, (and since the definition was not expected, and had not been discussed as a topic of the Council until shortly before the Counicl.) Why were there Polemics against it by Protestants for a couple centuries prior to the definition? Well the reality is, it had always been held, but never had to be defined, because it had not been attacked by anything but a few individuals. As the attacks at Truth became more prevalent among the Protestants, and threatened both Catholics with a misrepresentation of the authentic teaching, and to corrupt the Catholic Faith, it needed to be settled officially.

If we look for an example in the Bible, we see the example of the Coucil in Jerusalem and the issue of admission of Gentiles. The question was raised, both sides gave their case. James who was the Bishop of Jerusalem, did not stand up and settle the issue, but Peter, stood up and made the final pronouncement to define what the Church was to hold as an authentic teaching. Like today, when he made the statement, it was by the authority given him, and under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Newman, Wiseman, and I, as well as millions of Catholics are convnced the dogma has a Biblical basis. You it is obvious do not. My faith is also not based on Newman, who is fallible, but rather on Scripture. I have looked at what the BIble says, and I have also read it in Hebrew and Greek, and find your private interpretation to fall short. I also think that you are wrog that the "ONLY way to know truth is what the Bible teaches. The Bible in it’s proper context is useful, or profitable to teach Doctrine, not the sole source. Nor has it ever been. To hold such is contrary to what Jesus and the Apostles taught. I’ll stick with Jesus.

 

[rinnie]

]I dont know, but maybe he is bringing in Placido into the debate because Placido was the OP.

Hi placido, thanks for your reply. I’m back. For 34 years, I never found any Scripture that supports the infallibility doctrine of the Catholic church. and I’m sure Jesus’ church of the Bible is complete as it is written just as it was in the O.T. The Pharisees and Sadducees’ man-made rules is what Jesus condemned. I now see a parallel. The Bible states only two Sacraments, from where did the other five come from? Since I could not find anything about the popes being infallible in the Scriptures, I found references to it in other sources. For exp. At the first Vatican Council 1870, of the 1,000 members that were present, 535 voted for and 2 against the infallibility, the others left without voting . Why on such an important doctrine? ED O.

Hey Ed how about this scripture it supports the infallibility of the CC.

Matt 10:19-20 When Jesus says you will be given at that moment WHAT YOU ARE TO SAY? Good enough?

Of now are you going to deny that Matt was an apostle and part of the CC?

 

[guanophore]

Bill I am already familiar with these passages; if you think water baptism removes any sin then we agree to disagree. If you believe infants should be baptized to remove original sin; again we agree to disagree.

Sin is removed by God, in grace, through faith. He chooses to work His grace through the baptismal waters. Baptism removes all sin,original and personal.

If you believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit; different than that of water baptism is the saving baptism of the indwelling Holy Spirit, then we agree.  If you don't believe there are at least 3 types of baptism and I believe I can show their is a fourth; then we understand Scripture totally different.

The Aposltes never separated the baptism of the HS from that of water. That is why, when they observed the HS had fallen, they immediately ordered water baptism. In addition, they taught that those who were baptized in water received the HS. Indeed, there are many aspcts of the Baptism, but the Church has always believed and taught that there is only One Baptism. Fire, suffering, etc. are all aspects of this One Baptism.

In another post of yours, I read “you MUST separate water baptism from baptism of the HS”. Such a view departs from what the Apostles believed and taught.

Col 2:11-12 - baptism has replaced circumcision
Water baptism is not a sign/symbol of a covenant as circumcision was with the covenant between Abraham and God; see Genesis 17:11. Circumcision symbolized mans need for cleansing of the heart and was the outward sign of that cleansing of sin that comes by faith in God and identified with the Abrahamic covenant. At salvation, believers undergo a spiritual “circumcision” by putting off the sins of the flesh. This is the New Birth, the new creation at conversion.

Indeed, the Apostles taugth that baptism replaced circumcision as the entrance rite into the Kingdom. Since it was not withheld from infants under the old covenant, there was no reason to withold it under the New. They taught that we were born again in baptism, emerging from the water as from the womb.

The outward affirmation of that which is already accomplished, the inner transformation, is now the "believer's baptism", which is water baptism.

This is a departure from what the Apostles taugtht that occurrred over a millenia after they committed the faith to the Church. To the extent that it applies to adult converts, it is Catholic. Baptism was never considered a “public testimony” prior to the reformation.

So yes they are similar, but only as an outward expression of an inward faith. Just as the Jews were circumcised, many perished in unbelief and likewise; many that were/are& will be, water baptized perish in unbelief because neither water baptism or circumcision removes/removed sin of any kind.

The difference between baptism and circumcision is that the HS works through the wters of baptism to cleanse the heart, and wash away sins. This did not occur in circumcision.

Colossians 2: 11 reads, “And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands.” Obviously, this passage refers to a spiritual reality. We know that circumcision is a physical act, but the circumcision Paul speaks of is made without hands. It is a spiritual circumcision. So when verse 12 continues speaking of baptism, it is a spiritual baptism as well.

Indeed it is a spiritual work completed by the HS. When the person goes into the water, they are joined with Christ in His death, and when they come out of the water, they are joined with Him in His resurrection. They are regenerated, with their sins washed away, and clothed with Christ. This is done by the HS in the water, not by “human hands”.

This parallels Romans 6 in content, examining the idea of our being placed in Christ and identified with Him by the Spirit of God. Part of the confusion on the relationship of baptism to salvation is a failure to understand the context of the passages we are talking about.

I agree.

I find it interesting that all the disciples of the Apostles apparently “misunderstood” them the same way Catholics do today.

These passages refer to Spirit baptism which is essential to salvation.

1 Corinthians 12: 13 Paul says, “By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” Note that this Spirit baptism is something that had already happened among the Corinthians. But in 1 Corinthians 3: 1, Paul calls the Corinthians babies, fleshly Christians. From this we see that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not something that happens later to a believer that elevates him to a new plane of Christian life. If it were, how could the Corinthians still be fleshly? The baptism of the Spirit introduces people to the Christian life. It is what makes people Christians.

Yes. The Apostles taugtht that this occurred when one was born again through water and Spirit. This is one reason they baptized infants.

“By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12: 13). Not only are we baptized with the Holy Spirit, but we also drink of the Spirit. The significance of this is found in Romans 8: 9: “But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” It is that simple. If you do not indwelt by and of the Spirit of God, you cannot belong to Him. This is a universal truth for all believers.

This is why the Catholic Church accepts all those who are properly baptized as members of the Body of Christ.

In light of the Scriptures, we can conclude that a person is baptized with the Holy Spirit the moment he recognizes and believes that he is a sinner for whom Jesus Christ died.

You could conclude this, but it would not be accurate. Many have concluded this, but still do not become members of His Body.

The Spirit of God identifies him with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection and makes him a part of the Body of Christ. This is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is the command Jesus gave and outward is the expression of a professed faith in Christ.

This Reformed theology comes from Calvin, and is not consistent with Apostolic faith or teaching.

I hope this helps in your understanding of what Scripture teaches concerning the differences between water and spirit baptism.

 

[guanophore]

Bless you and best of luck working out your own salvation.

The working out of one’s salvation is anything but “luck”. It can only be done by grace, through faith. If one observes the next verse, this becomes clear “for God is at work in you to will and to do His good pleasure”. He is the author and finisher of our faith. It is not “luck”, but the Spirit of God in us conforming our hearts to His image.

 

[guanophore]

Matthew 19: 13-15 " …Let the children come to me. Don’t stop them! FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN BLEONGS TO SUCH AS THESE."

MARK 10:13-16 “…Let the children come to me. Don’t stop them! FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD BELONGS TO SUCH AS THESE. I ASSSURE YOU, ANYONE WHO DOESN’T HAVE THEIR KIND OF FAITH WILL NEVER GET INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”

Luke 18:15-17 says the same that Mark says.

Jesus welcomed the children, because little children have the kind of faith and trust needed to enter God’s Kingdom. Think about it Jesus wasn’t baptized until he was 30 years old. If a baby or infant needed to be baptized inorder to enter Heaven, Joseph and Mary instead of Presenting Jesus to the Lord in the Temple they would of had him baptized. So don’t worry about your or anyone’s baby giong to heaven if they weren’t baptized because the Kingdom belongs to them.

Jesus was born under the Old Covenant, and His parents did follow God’s commandments regarding how He should be initiated into it.

The Apostles never separated water baptism from the HS from the time that Jesus joined the two together when He was baptized.

 

[guanophore]

you should be baptized when you are able to understand what it is all about

You realize, don’t you, that this cannot be found in scripture anywhere?

and you can’t do that as a infant and nobody can make that decission for you.

Parents make all the decisions for their infants. Mary and Joseph made the decision that Jesus should be circumcised, and later, bar mitzvahed.

We choose what language to teach them, and everything about their health and welfare. Why neglect their spiritual health? I agree with your statement with regard to adults, which is what we see reflected in the NT.

Did John the baptist baptize any child? if so prove it.Matthew 3: 11 I baptize you with water those who turn from sin and return to God. Sin is action of attitude that disobeys God, betrays him or fails to do good hence it is a personal salvation and a sign of obedience to Christ.

John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance, and one cannot repent until one does reach the age of reason. You are correct about personal sin, but baptism also washed away original sin, which one does not choose, but into which we are all born.

he who is blind let him see!

Amen!

1 Peter3:21 “and this picture of baptism, which now sves you th epower of Jesus Christ’s resurrection. Baptism is not a removal of dirt from your body; it isa appeal to God from a clean conscience.”
silly rabbit were does it say any thing about infants

Baptism is a spiritual activity. People are not dipped in water in order to wash dirt from the Body, but in order to wash sin from the soul. This is done by the HS in the water, or “through” the water, as the Apostle teaches.

John 3:5 “the truth is, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. Human can reproduce only human life, but the holy spirit gives new life from heaven. So don’t be suprised at my statement that you must be born again. Just as you can hear the wind but can’t tell where it comes from or where it is going,so you can’t explain how people are born of the spirit.”

This is a very interesting translation. What is that?

The reason that the Apostles did not separate water baptism from being born again from above by the HS is because this is what Jesus taught.

 4. Jesus was being baptized for the sins of the nation.

Are you saying that you now agree that baptism washes away sins? How else does His baptism have anything to do with “the sins of the nation”? I don’t think you will find this in scripture any more than you will find that one "should understand everything’ prior to baptism.

explain to me why he waited until he was an adult. Why did he wait so long. I’m not saying you must wait until your 30,

He waited until the "fullness of time’. The political and econmic climate was perfect. Also, a Jewish man did not begin his Rabbinate (teaching for the nation) until he was 30. Prior to that, He would have been considered a youthful upstart.

get it right! when you are able to make your own decission!

This is not found in Scripture, or in the teachings of the Apostles. It is also not consistent with baptism as the replacement for circumcision.

You keep pointing to the"house hold" so why wasn’t Jesus baptized as a infant wasn’t he was also part of a House hold. explain!

Jesus was born under the Covenant of Moses, and His parents fulfilled all that they were commanded in relation to it. They did not wait to circumcise Him until he could make His own decision. Salvation is “of the Jews”. The Jewish life is a pattern and a shadow of what was to come. What is concealed in the Old is revealed in the New. It was Jesus who replaced circumcision with baptism.

 

[guanophore]

yes babies are part of a household get it right! I never said they weren’t.

If you believe that, and Scripture does not specifically state “everyone in the household, except the infants” then why do you conclude this? Slaves were also part of whole households, and were expected to practice the faith of the master.

Why should I read the early Church Fathers isn’t the Bible good enough.

This is a very good question. Good enough for what? Clearly reading only the bible is not sufficient for all of us to reach unity in the faith, or we would not be having this disagreement, right?

The Church fathers are closer to the Apostles, and also reflect what they beleived and taught. When we read them, we have clarity about how to understand the scriptures in the light of what the Apostles delivered to the Church.

Once again I’m going to point you to Mark 10:13-16
“Let the children come to me. Don’t stop them! For the KINGDOM BELONGS TO THEM”

They were Jewish children, born into the covenant, so yes, if they embraced their savior, they would be Messianic Jews. But He said to “such” as them. (those with childlike faith and trust".

Children will naturally grow up in the faith to which they are born, as long as someone does not hinder them.

Does it say the kingdom belongs to them only if they are baptized NO it does not. You have yet to show me were it says infants must be baptized inorder to go to heaven! and not just the household!

The Catholic Church does not teach that one has to be baptized in order to get to heaven. God can save whoever He wants, however He likes. What He commaned is that we be baptized so that we can go to heaven. We believe it is important and necessary to follow His commandments. If He wants to save an aborigine who has never met a Christian, or does not know about baptism, that is certainly His perogative. His commandments apply to those to whom they are given.

Didn’t Jesus die on the cross for our sins or isn’t original sin included?

Yes. In baptism, we are united to Him in His death, so that our sin can be put to death.
Our sins are nailed to the cross with Him.

Then why baptize infants? No body has been able to prove to me were it specifically says in the Bible to baptize infants. The only thing I get is the whole house hold. Thats not proof

No one will be able to “prove” this to you. That is why it is called an “article of faith”. It is something we beleive because it has been revealed to us by God, not “proven” by science.

It has been pointed out to you that the word “Trinity” is not found in Scripture either, and you believe that. You have no “proof” for that either. It is also an article of faith.

He was the same as a infant as he was a adult. The son of God. So if he was baptized as a infant wouldn’t it be instituted the same? Why must he be an adult to do that? After he was the son of God from the begining.

You are not even using your own logic! You posted just above that Jesus was baptized so that He could be revealed to Israel. He was not baptized at a younger age because it was not yet time for Him to be revealed.

Baptize- To immerse or sprinkle with water during Baptism {Webssters dictionary}
Bptism- immersion , submersion. {romans 6:1-4} Water Baptism for new Christians calls for special attention {Matthew 28:18-20} Baptism doesn’t save a person, but is a picture of obedience to Christ. Scriptural Baptism occurs only once. It is a matter between God and the individual when the time occures. {The student Bible dictionary}

Well, we don’t get our theology from Webster Dictionary, but from the Apostles, so that is one point of difference in our sources. The term “baptize” was used in the intertestamental period in pickle recipes. It was used both to describe “dipping” in the brine, and to “submerge” in the pickling juice. It is a particularly apt illustration, because baptism changes the essential nature of a person. Once a cucumber is “baptized” and becomes a pickle, it can never go back to being a cucumber. In the same way, the HS acts upon the heart of the person in the baptismal waters, sealing the person, marking them with a circumcision made without hands. After this, the person can never return to their previous state.

But baptism doesn’t whipe away sin.

It is the HS that washes away the sins. It happens in the 'waters of regeneration", which is what the Apostles called baptism.

Never said it was you. I said people like you.

I am curious to know what “people like” Micky are? Are those people that embrace the Apostolic teaching,a nd refuse to embrace innovations from the Reformers?

I find it curious that you credit Mickey with affirming your decision to abandon the Church founded by Christ, especially since he is not Catholic!

 

[guanophore]

>you are not only pushing your beliefs but you are telling others to use proper quotations methods, like your run this sight lol

Your posts are hard to read, Kevin. It behooves us all here to help one another. Are you so arrogant that you are not able to accept feedback from others that might result in an improvement?

Of course we push our beliefs! The name of the site is 'Catholic Answers".

Now lets get 1 thing strait, you have your beliefs and I have mine. Is that so hard to understand, your way is not the only way. Your religion is not the only one.

No, this is not hard to understand. Yes, there are many religions, however, Jesus only started One Church, and your beliefs, though you have a right to them, represent a departure from what Jesus taught to His Apostles.

You believe what you want to believe and I 'll believe what I want to believe ok. We are from 2 different religions who believe different ways and see things in a different light. Accept my beliefs just a I accept yours, thats what real people do.

Accepting that you have embraced heresies does not mean that we can agree with, or approve what you have done. We accept that you have the right to embrace beliefs that are different from the Church founded by Christ. God loves everyone enough to allow them to walk away from Him.

I pray that you can understand others views on things and accept that your way is not the only way. I’ll also pray that you stop being so stuborn in your ways. I’ll pray that you read what someone writes and not misunderstand what is being said even after being told several times. I appaud you for your strong belief and accept it I hope you do the same.

Of course the Teachings of the Apostles are not the “only way” that one can believe. They are, however, the beliefs that we are commanded to embrace and to show to others.

then why do ya’ll point to the "house hold’ all the time.If not in th ebible then were is it written. See not the root of my problem just show me were.

Yes, I see your problem. You have fallen victim to the error of Sola Scriptura. You are in the grip of the modern innovation that everything you need to know is in the Bible. You have declared a lack of confidence in God to preserve the Word that He committed to the Church.

You are not even consistent with your own modern innovation, since you have claimed to believe in the Trinity, and probably also worship on Sundays.